Once again, this survey fails to provide a compelling reason for the NHS to approve coverage for CGM technology. There needs to be a more comprehensive outline of the potential cost savings that justifies the cost of coverage.
13 million GBP sounds like a lot to all of us, but it's not even half of a percent of what the NHS spends each year on diabetes (around 3.5 billion based on figures found on DCUK). Even if the NHS could negotiate each system down to 2000GBP per year, and a CGM could (unrealistically) reduce the cost of hypos down to 0, the cost savings would only justify coverage for about 6500 people which is less than 5% (and probably closer to 2-3%) of the T1 population in the UK.
Sadly, this is not about saving lives. It is about saving money. It is unfortunate, but the NHS (and most healthcare systems around the world) cannot afford to save lives without additional funding, or cost savings in other areas of treatment. Pulling funds from other treatments means lives are potentially lost to other diseases so that's not an option.
As a Dexcom G5 CGM user myself, I believe there is a path to coverage under the NHS, Medicare, and other government healthcare systems under which CGM technology is currently being discussed. HOWEVER, I have yet to see anyone present a compelling argument and justification for the coverage.
There needs to be a full outline of the potential cost savings including:
Reduction in emergency expenses (here in the USA, that more than 40% of the total medical cost of diabetes)
Reduction in medications (specifically in test strips, but to a less extent things like insulin as more accurate doses can be given)
Increase in productivity primarily for those in the labor work force (it accounts for nearly $30 billion lost each year here in the US)